>Monarchy has been the standard method of ruling nations for 99% of recorded human history
>The overwhelming consensus nowadays is that monarchies are horrible in every conceivable way
Why and how
>>1159354
1. You're oversimplifying things. 'Monarchy' in the past had various different forms, from absolute monarchs to monarchs to supported by vassals to elected monarchs, and more.
2. Modern people mostly assume all monarchies were absolute monarchies.
3. Modern people are plebs who want to believe their ideology is perfect, amazing, and great because they get off on it. Same reason people in the Enlightenment made up those myths about the Middle Ages thinking the world was flat. Its so they look wiser by comparison.
Monarchies are simply the most stable form of a strong man. They are stable because there is clear succession.
They all tend to maintain power by methods we would deem unacceptable today.
>>1159388
>2. Modern people mostly assume all monarchies were absolute monarchies.
>M-Monarchies are good, so long as they are as far from monarchies as possible.
>>1159402
>we deem these methods unacceptable
It's not simply a choice. It's a natural result of the realities of the present, most notably education.
>>1159405
Actually I don't even have much trouble with absolute monarchies. I'm simply saying that many monarchies throughout history were not absolute, but mediated and depended on a monarch maintaining the support of a network of vassals, who may actually have elected him to the position.
>>1159354
Because the state in modern history has more responsibility than it had in any other time period beforehand and it all the duties can't be trusted to be settled by a single person anymore.
>>1159413
fuedal monarchies are if anything less desirable because the major nobles can themselves field large armies and civil wars are much more common
Dictatorship is simply the modern form of monarchy. While people today may laugh off the idea of a king, many would be amenable to a dictator in the proper circumstances.
It is, to paraphrase some dumb strawman, CURRENT YEAR.
>>1159428
john oliver isn't a strawman, hes a real human bean
>>1159422
Incorrect
>>1159354
because it's a man made system and like every single thing created by men it's flawed.
some supporters of this method of rulling claim that it's more fair and less corrupt since the king doesn't have to answer to anyone therefore he doesn't legislate to appease or appeal to anyone and since he is tought to be a king from birth, he's more well prepared than the common politician.
honestly, some of those points can have some weight and logic but i would never pick some random dick to rule my country until he dies - also, leaders are natural born and you can't train a man to be a leader so if the prince is a little shit there's nothing the common men can do to kick him out unless they decide to risk their own freedom/life to overthrow them and pray for a better guy at the roulette
also, divine right would be pretty much impossible to force in a globalized and modern world
>>1159354
The modern bureaucratic state has a much greater capability to exert coercive authority over its territory, to mobilize its resources for a war effort and to intrude into the private lives of it's citizens than more or less any state throughout history.
It is very risky to allow such power to be concentrated in a single man, a certain number of veto players are needed to at least mitigate the misuse of state power
Maybe in israel and asia. Europe is a thousand years of republics and democracies along side tribals, then another thousand years of monarchies alongside republics, then the rest are basically republics or neo republics in constitutional monarchies. Monarchy is an oriental form of governance
>>1159740
>thousands of years of monarchies and empires are invalidated by a bunch of Italian merchants
>>1159423
Well that's two systems. Feudalism and monarchy.
>>1159354
Jews and Marxists.
Hobbes is a materialist and a modernist, using him to represent monarchy (even though he argued for absolute monarchy) does not remotely represent the real tradition and meaning of monarchy.
To answer your question OP, monarchies are despised due to the decline in belief in God, and in fact finding that belief repugnant. I have even seen on this very board, the idea expressed that delinquents are "true adults", whereas people who hold duty in high regard are "children".
>>1159773
>he doesn't realize that all monarchies except for a few ancient Near-eastern / Levantine ones are materialistic and only play lip-service to religion
>>1159789
Materialist didn't even exist as a widespread ideology until the 19th Century, before then it was a purely academic ideology.
>>1159354
People have bought the bridge and drunk the kool aid on the absolutely batshit idea that we should allow the kind of people who desire power to be the only ones who obtain it.
Anyone who wants political power or tremendous personal wealth is, by definition, a horrible person. We should be seeking systems to prevent their acquisition, if not prevent their reproduction entirely.
>>1159749
>>1159755
Monarchists are the ones basing their appeals on western tradition, I'm merely pointing out this is false tradition. The period where monarchies reigned in europe is also one of the most backwards, the greatest examples of monarchs they use are ones that had parliaments
Hobes isn't even so much a monarchist but a federalist in the drapings of the time, Machiavelli as well was a republican using the shroud of monarchy for his state heavy agenda
>>1159795
Fine. Materialistic in nature and ultimate intent.
>>1159773
Please enlighten us on the "real" meaning of monarchy, and how its more compatible with spiritual values
>>1159803
>The period where monarchies reigned in europe is also one of the most backwards
[Citation Needed]
>Dying during childbirth has been the standard or 99% of recorded human history
>The overwhelming consensus nowadays is that dying in childbirth is horrible in every conceivable way
Why and how
>>1159354
I yearn for a leader who cares for his people and offers his all to ensure the longlevity of his country.
>>1159803
>The period where monarchies reigned in europe is also one of the most backwards
I dunno man the dark ages was mostly brought on by the collapse of the Roman empire followed by massive waves of migration populations then followed up by steppe nomads fucking everything up - besides that the period of time when all of Europe was just tribal federations was definitely even more brutal than the "dark ages"
> the greatest examples of monarchs they use are ones that had parliaments
>France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Sweden, and Russia were parliamentary monarchies
No.
>>1159815
Totally not a false dichotomy, republiprick.
>>1159820
I mean, the overpopulation crisis is pretty bad for the whole planet.
>>1159820
>False Dichotomies have been a standard method of argument for 99% of recorded human history
>The overwhelming consensus nowadays is that false dichotomies are horrible in every conceivable way
Why and how
>>1159804
I don't see what you mean by that, since their laws (for instance, the rise of laws against homosexuality, the abolition of gladiator fights, the banning of usury) were extremely influenced by religion.
Feudalism is historically a much more common state of affairs than absolute monarchy.
>>1159811
Monarchy is defined by the slogan, "By God and for God." Democracy is defined by the slogan, "By the people and for the people."
>>1159828
Despite the picture of Hobbes, the OP didn't actually use the adjective "absolute" anywhere.
>>1159815
I encourage people like yourself to post more often and am genuinely happy when you do
You're the perfect example of why democracy is the worst form of government
>>1159354
Because now we are smart and progressive and back then people were le stupid because they didn't have iPhone or read the Huffington Post or something. Also most people buy into the absolute monarchy myth, when in fact such a thing did not really ever exist for any major period of time in most places. Therefore, monarch is conflated with dictator and all of the negative connontations that brings, despite the fact that most of the horrors of fascism were in direct opposition to what the old monarchies would have done.
>>1159795
What an completely unconstructive argument. Present an alternative, otherwise pointing out that people in power generally want to be in power is nothing but aimless complaining about basic human nature.
>>1159833
The nonsense is so heavy in that post I dont know what to say.
>>1159354
The United States of America?
>>1159842
>Present an alternative
People from all walks of life believed in the spiritual, from the superstitious illiterate, the sophisticated intellectuals. The idea that the administrators were all materialists has no basis other than appeal to cynicism. Why would they be materialists?
>>1159860
Because Realism is and has been the school of thought of the majority of all nations throughout history when it comes to foreign policy and domestic affairs.
Or do you really believe that the Greeks went to war with Troy because of "honor" and nothing else?
>>1159834
I got one final point to deliver. I'm not a repubican, I'm an anarcho-primitivist. So I've got a bit of a leg up on you in the length of time department.
>>1159869
>I'm an anarcho-primitivist
Glad we know to discard anything you say as bullshit
>>1159869
>anarcho-anything
monarchy is empirically inferior and this thread has only further established monarchists similarities to communist in the denial of reality
>>1159869
You willingly gave that point up? Seems more masochistic than actually trying to support your argument.
>>1159354
If the king screws up, it's awful and may cause turmoil and transformation.
When many in the government screw up, it's just another normal day.
Well, that's probably not always true, but things take a long time to go through in modern government
>>1159865
We don't even know if there was a woman named Helen who was abducted, but if you did abduct a king's wife, I really don't think there would be any other motive necessary. I also don't think you can compare the Greek religion with Christianity, but the Greeks certainly held their laws as influenced by their religion, and oracles were consulted all the time before important decisions.
people are materialist heodnist and do no care much about who rules over what
>>1160005
>people prefer the form of government that best serves their individual self-interest
get the fuck outta here
>>1159354
Look at the French and American revolution.
>>1159354
A monarchy is not objectively "good" or "bad," it is dependent on the competence of it's monarch.
The only tangible difference between a monarchy and a democracy is in the stability of the government.
A good tyrant will always be better than a good republican elective body; a bad tyrant will always be worse than a republican elective body.
>>1160074
Nice shitpost
>>1160075
>anything I don't like or agree with is a shitpost.
Sorry for violating your safe space.
>>1160075
Get off /his/ please
>>1160074
>a bad tyrant will always be worse than a republican elective body.
I mostly agree, but is one bad tyrant worse than a few dozen?
>>1160087
>maxresdefault.jpg
Nice shitpost
>>1160095
A bad democracy can be really, really bad, but it will always have checks and balances, and there will presumably at least a few "good" men who truly have the interests of their constituents at heart.
And presumably, the "few dozen" bad tyrants in the parliament/congress/whatever will be voted out of office in the next elections for doing a poor job.
>>1160111
>And presumably, the "few dozen" bad tyrants in the parliament/congress/whatever will be voted out of office in the next elections for doing a poor job.
That's a big maybe. My point was that could it not be worse if everyone there was a bad tyrant? And they used elections as a way of covering each other so that you never really voted out the roots of the problems.
>>1159354
What sort of monarchy do you mean?
1) absolute (see Louis the 16th of France)
2) Oligarchical monarchy (Rome: late period)
3) Religious Monarchy (Ancient Egypt)
4) Military Monarchy (Prussia, Oliver Cromwell's England)
5) Divine Right Monarchy (See middle ages)
6) Constitutional Monarchy (England, George the 3rd to today)
Figure it out, then we'll talk. Because Constitutional Monarchy ain't all bad.
>>1160115
I'm not saying it's not possible, but if a republic/democracy devolves that badly it ceases to be a proper democracy and becomes an oligarchy in the guise of a republic, which, depending on the inclination and intelligence of the members of the oligarchy, can actually be a good thing.
An intelligent and patriotic populace can easily ensure that an oligarchy is unable to form though, which is why I personally consider education to be the most important factor in preparing the people for an election.
>>1159354
Is appeal to tradition some sort of official logical fallacy?
>>1160140
More like op's trying to take a historical logical phallus.
>>1160111
Direct democracy is workable on a small scale. Representative democracy, however, will always be a wicked system, because it revolves around favors and pursuit of power, and when you gain that power you are beholden to those you owe favors to, and no power is ever enough. In monarchy, the king might owe favors depending (very common in feudalistic monarchies), but he doesn't owe power to anyone, and he doesn't have to climb for more power, he's already at the top; the king's job is mainly to manage, he is a role model for all of society as well. Democratic leaders are divisive, they are not paragons, they are dragged through the mud before even getting into power, and continually pelted without throughout their tenure, it's a disgusted, backbiting system where even the people who aren't politicians gossip and backstab their own leaders, who of course are going to feel very if any loyalty to such constituents compared to those whom they owe favors to, especially since it is the latter who can give them even more power.
Head of states should be chosen from a group of people who have trained since childhood to be King/Queen, and those who aren't chosen to be Head of state should be made head of lower-tier Governments (states/provinces) or head of Government departments
These people would not be chosen by birth but by a nation wide test and application process at the age of 10 and they would serve the office for life and help train the next generation
Prove me wrong
>>1160172
Individualism as an ideology is incompatible with monarchism. Monarchism hails from an age when people identifies with one's family more strongly than oneself, thus it was not a question of "who should sit on the throne?" but "which family should sit on the throne"? The individualist attitude is exactly what leads to the end of monarchism, especially since the power to choose how the tests work is the real power here.
>>1160191
So then why did Monarchism end throughout all of Asia? Their cultures as still collectivist as all fug.
>>1160193
1. Monarchism ended in Asia due to exposure to Western ideologies.
2. Collectivism is not identical with familialist. Marx is collectivist, Confucius (who is seriously an excellent philosopher) is familialist. They obviously wouldn't see eye to eye.
>>1160128
>but if a republic/democracy devolves that badly it ceases to be a proper democracy and becomes an oligarchy in the guise of a republic
Except most republics/democracies are always going to be plutocracies.
>An intelligent and patriotic populace can easily ensure that an oligarchy is unable to form though
They haven't thus far. But i guess that's a tough thing to measure.
But yes, there should be mandatory education before voting. Hell, enough of it might actually bring down the cost of running for elected position.
>>1159354
Ideology.
>>1159818
Id do that for you.
Id have my vices sure, as any king, yet would focus most of my time on matters of state.
Id even let you elect your next king. Fuck any sons or dauthers, ill give them privlige as they grow with my annual salary but they can be anything but involved in politics. hell, that'll be one of my first royal decrees.
You need a certain frame of mind though to be rightous, also its very difficult not to be corrupted as time goes on, after all, my word is law and just, so its easy to abuse.
I would say that the best monarch is a 'rags to riches' monarch as they can appreciate the common peoples plight, or at the very least be exposed to it pre-kingship.
Be loyal to me and we will build a kingdom toghter, brave anon, if you live ill make you an earl if your a supporter in my early days of forging a nation for you.
